Re: [Marxism] Venezuela

[David Picón Álvarez <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Paula" <Paula_cerni@xxxxxxx>
>> I'm not going to make the case that Spain is a model for anyone. However,
>> whatever the issues Spain may have, there are 2 that I think are very 
>> much
>> not an important problem: the first is term limits, which do not exist,
>> nor
>> do they need to, in my view.
>
> Indeed, term limits cannot exist for kings, because 'terms' as such do not
> exist for them. Or, another way to put it, they enjoy one long 'unlimited
> term'. Or, yet another way, their term is limited by God/death, not by the
> citizens.

I congratulate you on missing the main point to my post, it being that 
substantially the chief of government in a parliamentary monarchy has 
identical powers to the chief of state and government in a presidentialist 
republic.

> According to wikipedia, the king is the commander-in-chief of the Spanish
> armed forces; so his role is by no means purely ceremonial. He has much 
> more
> power, and 'freedom of action,' than any other individual Spanish citizen.

As with many legal issues, it's not as simple as that. You're litterally 
correct that the king (the crown, really, it could be a queen) is the 
commander in chief of the armed forces. You're wrong about the consequences 
you attribute to this fact. By art 56.3 of the Spanish constitution, any 
acts of the king must be co-signed in the manner indicated in art 64, except 
as otherwise provided by art 65.2. If they are not so co-signed, they are 
void, and have no force to compell. Art 64 indicates that the acts of the 
king are co-signed by the president of the government, and if applicable by 
the competent minister, except for certain cases in which they're co-signed 
by the president of Congress. The exception provided for in art 65.2 refers 
to the appointment to positions in the royal house. In summary, the role of 
the king as commander of the armed forces is purely ceremonial, and the king 
has no capacity to issue any orders or instructions with force to compell, 
except as co-signed by the president of the government and the competent 
minister (in this case the defence minister).

> Unfortunately the Spanish left (with a few exceptions) supports this
> undemocratic institution, usually by dismissing it as 'purely ceremonial'
> and never including a demand for abolition in their programs.

Pretty much the whole of the left except for PSOE is republican. The PSOE is 
probably republican in principle also, although it doesn't make 
pronouncements one way or the other. It's irrelevant though, considering 
that title II of the Constitution (on the Crown) and other articles that 
establish the form of state are protected by art 168 by a very rigid reform 
procedure that requires: two thirds of Congress, two thirds of the Senate, 
disolution of Parliament, again two thirds of both chambers, and referendum. 
If anyone thinks that a proposal to establish a republic is going to have 
enough support to have any chance of passing, they're not well informed or 
delusional. The PP alone can and would stop such reform from passing, aside 
from the very problematic fact that, if an outbreak of contagious 
republicanism took place in both chambers of parliament, it is extremely 
likely that the reform would fail the referendum. The left has better things 
to do than fighting massive public opinion and a lobsided procedural rule 
with no chances of winning in the end. Not now, not yet.

This is pretty cfar from the question on whether removal of term limits can 
be equated to being a "president for life" though, on which my arguments 
seem to have been ignored.

--David.

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism